It is my understanding that edge geometry plays a bigger role in these types of strength tests than even the steel type. How do the BK2 and ESEE-5 compare as far as blade thickness and edge geometry? They look fairly close.
We need an
effer-style edge-geometry analysis to inform on the demonstration, otherwise it could have as easily been ESEE-5 vs kitchen knife. Hardness (Rc) analyses to compare HT would also help.
Primary factors: edge geometry, heat treatment, then steel-type.
Since both here are 1095, the 3rd is controlled for. If the BK has a thinner grind + softer HT (suggested by the observed results), it may be quicker to dull from use but may slice softer materials (not steel) more efficiently and re-sharpen more easily. The ESEE looks to have a thicker grind + harder HT to make it more durable in use (including on harder materials) and require resharpening less often, potentially sacrificing slicing efficiency and ease of resharpening. Whether these suggested trade-offs result in observable superiority of one knife over the other in the aforementioned tasks (i.e. 'normal' use) is arguably of more relevance than observing which knife-edge will penetrate further when impacted together.
Were these knives demonstrated to be approximately equivalent in regard to normal tasks (i.e. were slicing efficiency and maintenance requirements not noticably different)? If so, THEN can one conclude that the ESEE has superior design / HT for the intended uses!
(Although a better comparative "test" would be to impact the knives against the
same medium rather than against one another - hard wood < concrete < steel).
But for those who do not require the superior durability of the ESEE and don't mind resharpening a little more often, for less money... but that gets into subjective cost/benefit analyses, not the point of objective "testing".
Thanks for posting the vids!
:thumbup:
(improve your methods somewhat like another popular knife 'destroyer' and you could turn n=1 into n=2!)
